ORDER Petitioners have assailed notification dated 29.4.2014 (Annexure-A) which has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka) (“Commissioner” for the sake of brevity) exercising powers under first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (‘Act’ for short), 2003. By the said notification, the Commissioner has notified those dealers whose total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above during tax periods of the year ending 31st day of March 2014 or whose cumulative total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above in the tax periods of any subsequent year, shall furnish certain details electronically through internet on or before 20th day of the succeeding month. The said notification has certain annexures giving details to be uploaded by the notified dealers. Petitioners have also assailed Annexures – B to E, which are formats which have been issued by second respondent – Commissioner for the purpose of entering the details electronically in terms of the impugned notification. 2. Petitioners are stated to be dealers in rice bran and have been registered under the provisions of the Act. First petitioner has stated that he purchases rice bran and maize both from dealers registered under the Act as well as from unregistered dealers. He sells the said agroproducts to both registered as well as unregistered dealers. According to him, maize is totally exempt from tax under the Act. Therefore, no tax is required to be paid for maize, but for the purchase of rice bran from registered dealers petitioner pays tax. Thus both input tax and output tax is computed in respect of rice bran. Second petitioner is stated to be a dealer in Rice Bran, which is wholly exempt from tax under the provisions of the Act. Even then second petitioner is required to file his monthly returns as stipulated under Section 35 of the Act. By the impugned notification dated 29.4.2014, petitioners have to disclose certain details. Contending that the disclosure of those details would affect their business and hence it is violative of Article 265, Article 14 and Article 19(1) of the Constitution, these writ petitions have been filed, assailing Annexures A to E. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents on advance notice and perused the material on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents on advance notice and perused the material on record. 4. It was firstly contended by petitioners’ counsel that the impugned notification, which has been issued in exercise of the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act, is an instance of excessive delegation of power granted under the Act by the legislature. He drew my attention to Section 35 of the Act, which deals with filing of returns and the first proviso which enables the Commissioner to identify specified dealers who may be notified by him for the purpose of filing of returns in the prescribed format electronically through internet in the manner specified in the said notification. In this context, it was submitted that the specification made in the impugned notification has no reference to subsection 12 of Section 2 of the Act, which defines specified dealers and thus classifying the dealers on the basis of their monthly turnover is incorrect. 5. Learned counsel also pointed out that under Section 88 of the Act, the legislature has empowered the State Government to make Rules. In terms of that empowerment, Rule 38 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules 2005 have been framed, which prescribes the manner in which monthly returns have to be submitted and when a specific prescription has been made under the Rules, the second respondent-Commissioner could not have altered that prescription by the impugned notification, wherein the details as required under that notification have to be disclosed along with the monthly turnover. He also contended that the petitioners are not in a big city, but in a muffusil area namely, Bhadravathi and hardship would be caused to them, if every month they are to upload the details as mentioned in the impugned notification as they would have to engage a person solely for that purpose which is an additional expenditure and thus an unreasonable restriction, as their right to carry on their business is adversely affected. Drawing my attention to the impugned notification and annexures as well as details which are now required to be given under the impugned notification, it was contended that the impugned notification being violative of the Constitution, would have to be quashed. 6. Drawing my attention to the impugned notification and annexures as well as details which are now required to be given under the impugned notification, it was contended that the impugned notification being violative of the Constitution, would have to be quashed. 6. It was also contended that the petitioners are dealing in goods exempted from tax and at least those dealers must be exempted from complying with the impugned notification and dealers who are not to pay any tax under the Act by virtue of the exemption cannot be put to hardship by making them disclose details as required in the impugned notification. 7. It was also contended that the impugned notification ought to have been in the form of a Rule and if so, the rules would have to be laid before the legislature as per Section 88 of the Act. The same not having been done, it is in violation of the provision of the Act. 8. An argument was also advanced that the disclosure of the information sought under the impugned notification would amount to leakage of trade secrets and unhealthy competition in the field of business in which the petitioners are engaged in and thereby adversely affect their prospects in business. Advancing the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought quashing of the impugned notification. 9. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents would contend that the notification has been issued in order to enhance transparency in payment of tax under the provisions of the Act and that they are issued by exercising powers granted under the provisions of the Act. There is no excessive delegation given to the Commissioner to issue the impugned notification. The disclosure of requisite details would in no way hamper the business of the petitioners or any other dealer who is similarly situated. The Commissioner has applied his mind in order to specify those dealers who have to comply with the requirement of the notification. As the petitioners fall within that specification, they would have to comply with that notification and that there is no violation of Articles 14, 19(i) (g) or 265 of the Constitution. 10. Aforesaid contentions would be considered and answered having regard to the impugned notification as well as relevant Sections and Rules made under the Act. 11. As the petitioners fall within that specification, they would have to comply with that notification and that there is no violation of Articles 14, 19(i) (g) or 265 of the Constitution. 10. Aforesaid contentions would be considered and answered having regard to the impugned notification as well as relevant Sections and Rules made under the Act. 11. Before answering the said contentions, it would be relevant to extract the impugned notification dated 29.4.2014 (Annexure –A) which reads as under:- “In exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, it is hereby notified with immediate effect that commencing from the tax period of May, 2014 every dealer, whose total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above during tax periods of the year ending 31st day of March 2014 or whose cumulative total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above in the tax periods of any subsequent year, shall furnish electronically through internet, on or before 20th day of the succeeding month, the details of: (i) purchase of goods made from within the State, in the course of inter State trade or commerce and in the course of import into the territory of India including any debit notes or credit notes issued or received in respect of any change in the value or return of goods; (ii) receipt of goods otherwise than by way of purchase from, other registered dealers outside the State; (iii) Sale of goods made within the State, in the course of inter State trade or commerce and in the course of export outside the territory of India including any debit notes or credit notes issued or received in respect of change in the value or return of goods; and (iv) Transfer of goods otherwise than by way of sale to, other registered dealers outside the State, as mentioned in the Annexures from I to X to this notification in the following manner: (1) Every such dealer shall log on to the website http://vat/kar.nic.in/ with the ‘username’ and ‘password’ communicated to him by the LVO or VSO and proceed to furnish the particulars of his purchases/receipts and sales/stock transfer of goods. (2) He shall follow the procedure and instructions as specified in the website to enter the details.” Annexures-B to E are the formats which have been issued pursuant to the impugned notification for the purpose of uploading information along with the filing of returns. 12. A reading of the said notification makes it apparent that it is issued by the second respondent Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 35 reads as under:- “35. Returns (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), every registered dealer, and the Central Government, a State Government, a statutory body and a local authority liable to pay tax collected under subsection (2) of Section 9 shall furnish a return in such form and manner, including electronic methods, and shall pay the tax due on such return within twenty days or fifteen days after the end of the preceding month or any other tax period as may be prescribed: Provided that the specified class of dealers as may be notified by the Commissioner shall furnish particulars for preparation of the return in the prescribed form or submit the return in the prescribed form, electronically through internet in the manner specified in the said notification: Provided further the specified class of dealers as may be notified by the Commissioner shall pay tax payable on the basis of the return, by electronic remittance through internet in the manner specified in the said notification.” Rule 38 of the Rules reads as under: “38. Submission of monthly return(1) Every registered dealer shall submit a monthly or quarterly return as the case may be, containing values of sales, purchases and other transactions, input and output tax claimed or collected and net tax relating to all of his places of business, and accompanied by proof of full payment of any tax due including any certificate of deduction of tax at source and a statement containing the details of purchases made within the State from other registered dealers in respect of which he is eligible to claim deduction of input tax and sales of taxable goods made to other registered dealers in the State to the jurisdictional Local VAT Officer or VAT Sub-Officer in Form VAT 100 within twenty days after the end of the relevant month where the tax period is a calendar month or fifteen days after the end of the relevant quarter where the tax period is a quarter: Provided that any registered dealer unable to furnish any certificate of deduction of tax at source along with the return in Form VAT 100 shall furnish such certificate within a period of ten days from the last day for submitting the return: Provided further that the form of monthly or quarterly return in respect of dealers liable to pay tax under subsections (4) and (5) of Section 4 including any tax liability under sub-section (1) of Section 4, shall be in Form VAT 105: Provided also that the return in Form VAT 100 for any month commencing from the first day of June, 2010, shall be in the form as substituted in the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2010: Provided also that the return, to be submitted by a dealer referred to in second proviso, for any month commencing from the first day of June, 2010, shall be in Form VAT 105 as inserted by the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2010. Provided also that the return, submitted by a dealer for any tax provided shall also contain values of sales or purchases and output tax or input tax in respective goods sold being returned in such tax period within the period prescribed under clause (d) or (e) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 3. Provided also that the return, submitted by a dealer for any tax provided shall also contain values of sales or purchases and output tax or input tax in respective goods sold being returned in such tax period within the period prescribed under clause (d) or (e) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 3. Provided also that the return submitted by a dealer for any tax period shall also contain values of sales or purchases and output tax or input tax in respective sold on which tax is payable in excess of the amount shown as tax charged in the tax invoice already issued for such sale. (2) Every department of Government, statutory or local authority shall submit a monthly return, as specified in sub-rule (1), to the jurisdictional Local VAT officer or VAT sub-officer or to such Local VAT officer or VAT sub-officer as may be notified by the Commissioner where such body is located in areas falling under more than one Local VAT officer or VAT sub-officer. (3) The tax indicated in the return shall be due on the twenty first day or sixteenth day, as the case may be after the end of the relevant tax period. (4) As long as any dealer remains registered, he shall submit such monthly or quarterly return as the case may be whether or not any tax is due for any tax period. (5) The Government may notify any Bank or appoint any intermediary in respect of any class of dealers as responsible for receipt of returns along with payment of tax or any other amount due under the Act electronically or otherwise, subject to such conditions as may be specified. (6) Any registered dealer furnishing a revised return under subsection (4) of section 35 shall do so in Form VAT 110. (7) A dealer may also submit a return electronically to the jurisdictional Local VAT Officer or VAT sub-officer or to a Bank or any intermediary appointed by the Government, subject to such procedure as specified.” The first and second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 were inserted by Act No.4 of 2010 w.e.f 1.4.2010. The second proviso states that specified class of dealers who are notified by the Commissioner have to pay tax on the basis of the return and the remittance has to be made electronically through internet in the manner specified in the notification. The second proviso states that specified class of dealers who are notified by the Commissioner have to pay tax on the basis of the return and the remittance has to be made electronically through internet in the manner specified in the notification. But the first proviso which is under consideration states that specified class of dealers who are notified by the Commissioner have to furnish particulars for preparation of the return in the prescribed format and submit the return in the prescribed format electronically through internet in the manner specified in the notification. The State Government has left it to the wisdom of the Commissioner to specify the class of dealers who have to be notified for the purpose of furnishing particulars for preparation of the return in the prescribed format. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the Commissioner to identify the specified class of dealers and also the nature of information or particulars that are to be furnished by them while furnishing their return and also the format in which such information has to be uploaded by the specified class of dealers. The specified class of dealers which is stated in the first proviso has no nexus to the definition of dealers in subsection (12) of Section 2 of the Act, inasmuch as the definition of dealers under that sub section is based on the nature of trade in which dealers are engaged in. In fact, the definition clause cannot restrict the power of Commissioner to identify specific class of dealers. In fact, the identification of dealers whose turnover is fifty lakhs and above during tax period which is one calendar month in the instant case on monthly basis is not relatable to the nature of trade that the dealers are engaged in, but is referable to the total turnover permit of such dealers who are engaged in various trades. Therefore, the definition clause cannot restrict the power of the Commissioner to specify the class of dealers in respect of whom particulars have to be furnished as notified by the Commissioner, electronically through internet. 13. That part, the Commissioner has been empowered to identify the class of dealers in respect of whom particulars have to be sought as has been done by the impugned notification. 13. That part, the Commissioner has been empowered to identify the class of dealers in respect of whom particulars have to be sought as has been done by the impugned notification. If the Commissioner on application of mind has identified the dealers whose turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above during tax periods of the year ending 31st day of March 2014 or whose cumulative total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above in the tax periods of any subsequent year, such an identification cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court by sitting in judgment over it. As already stated it is left to the wisdom of the Commissioner to select such kind of dealers for the purpose of specifying them as a ‘class’ for the purpose of seeking particulars at the time of furnishing of the returns. Hence this Court cannot sit in judgment over the specification of class of dealers by the Commissioner in the impugned notification. 14. Also when the legislature has in its wisdom empowered the Commissioner, who is an expert in the field to specify the class of dealers, it cannot be held that there is an excessive delegation granted to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is not making any Rule as contended by petitioners’ counsel. The Commissioner is only identifying the class of dealers who have to furnish certain particulars for the purpose of assessment of their returns. In specifying the class of dealers there is no legislation made by the Commissioner. It is an administrative Act, which has been delegated to the Commissioner. Therefore, there is no excessive delegation in the instant case. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills, Delhi & another ( AIR 1968 SC 1232 ) it is held that, power was conferred by Section 150 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act on the Corporation to levy any of the optional taxes by prescribing the maximum rates of tax to be levied; to fix class or classes or persons or the description or descriptions of articles and properties to be taxed and to lay down the system of assessment and exemptions if any to be granted. This was held to be not an unguided or excessive delegation. 15. Pursuant to proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act, the impugned notification dated 29/4/2014 has been issued. This was held to be not an unguided or excessive delegation. 15. Pursuant to proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act, the impugned notification dated 29/4/2014 has been issued. The object of the notification is to identify a specified class of dealers, who would have to be notified about the manner of preparation of the return and the manner in which it has to be filed. The notification states that commencing from the tax period May, 2014, every dealer, whose total turnover is Rs.50,00,000/- and above during the tax periods of the year ending 31/3/2014 or whose cumulative total turnover is Rs.50,00,000/and above in the tax periods of any subsequent year, shall furnish electronically through internet, on or before 20th day of succeeding month certain details. Therefore, the Commissioner has identified the specified class of dealers in terms of the turnover. The notification is an instance of issuance of administrative directions or instructions. A direction may be specific being applicable to a particular purpose or a particular case or it may be of a general nature. In the instant case, the direction is issued in the form of a notification, which is an exercise of general administrative power even though it is pursuant to a statutory power. Very often, a direction of a general nature may resemble a rule or legislation, but there is an essential difference in concept and essence. While a piece of delegated legislation called administrative legislation is called as “administrative quasi law” or “administrative quasi legislation”, a direction could be issued under general administrative power of the Government even though relatable to a statutory power. Merely because a direction on notification is issued pursuant to a statutory power, it would not become a piece of delegated legislation or a rule [Source: Principles of Administrative Law – by M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain – updated 6th Edition]. 16. In Fernandez V/s. State of Mysore ( AIR 1967 SC 1753 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court characterized the Mysore PWD Code as containing only “executive instructions” as the code had been issued by the Government not under any statutory authority but under its general administrative powers. Similarly, in Sadhu Singh V/s. State of Punjab ( AIR 1984 SC 739 ) para 516B of Punjab Jail Manual was held to be a direction and not a rule. Similarly, in Sadhu Singh V/s. State of Punjab ( AIR 1984 SC 739 ) para 516B of Punjab Jail Manual was held to be a direction and not a rule. Thus, a direction or the administrative instructions need not be relatable to a rule, but can be issued under general powers of the Constitution, which are administrative powers under Article 73 as far as the Central Government is concerned and Article 162 as far as State Government is concerned. 17. In Surinder Singh V/s. Central Government ( AIR 1986 SC 2166 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words, framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew my attention to Section 88 of the Act, under which the Government is empowered to make rules by notification to carry out the purposes of the Act. Those rules have to be made after previous publication and inviting objections under Section 89, and the rules so made have to be laid before the House of State Legislature and only thereafter, they would acquire validity. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notification is a rule and that Sections 88 and 89 have not been complied with in the instant case. This submission has to be considered in light of what has been stated in the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act. By an amendment, first proviso was inserted to identify the class of dealers for the purpose of seeking certain particulars at the time of filing of returns in the specified form. Rule 38 deals with submission of monthly returns under a particular format applicable to all registered dealers, but within the general category of the registered dealers insofar as specified class of dealers are concerned, the Act itself empowers the Commissioner to seek certain other particulars. Rule 38 deals with submission of monthly returns under a particular format applicable to all registered dealers, but within the general category of the registered dealers insofar as specified class of dealers are concerned, the Act itself empowers the Commissioner to seek certain other particulars. Therefore, the Act itself recognizes dealers who could be identified and notified as specified class of dealers from whom additional information or particulars could be sought electronically on internet in the manner specified in the notification. This specification of the class of dealers has to be made by the Commissioner and is not applicable to every dealer who has to file return under Section 38. Even though a dealer may be filing his returns in the prescribed format under Rule 38 of the Rules, insofar as a specification of a class of dealers made by the Commissioner is concerned, additional information can be sought in terms of first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act by issuance of Notification by the Commissioner. 19. The object of the first proviso is to ensure that there is transparency in the filing of returns and also to ensure that there is efficient assessment of the returns of the specified class of dealers, as in the instant case, those dealers who have a huge turnover. The Commissioner can specify the class of dealers having regard to the nature of a trade or having regard to the extent of their turnover. That is a matter left over to the wisdom of the Commissioner by the legislature. The first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act having empowered the Commissioner to specify the class of dealers from whom certain information in a particular format has to be filed, would not amount to a further legislation. As already noted, it is only an administrative act of issuing a notification to specify the class of dealers. Rule 38 has in no way been interfered with by the impugned notification, rather, while submission of the monthly returns are made by the specified class of dealers notified by the Commissioner additional information would have to be filed by specified class of dealers as required in the notification issued under Section 35 of the Act. Rule 38 has in no way been interfered with by the impugned notification, rather, while submission of the monthly returns are made by the specified class of dealers notified by the Commissioner additional information would have to be filed by specified class of dealers as required in the notification issued under Section 35 of the Act. It is also to be noted that the impugned notification is in no way making an amendment to Rule 38 and neither is it an instance of exercise of power under Section 88 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notification cannot be called a piece of legislation, which infringes Rule 38 of the Rules. The power granted to the Commissioner under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 35 in no way touches upon the power granted to the State Government to make rules under Rule 88. When the impugned notification cannot be stated to be a rule, the procedure contemplated under Sections 88 and 89 would not apply. Thus, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the impugned notification is a rule. 20. It was next contended that the requirement of furnishing details as sought by the Commissioner in the impugned Notification would cause hardship to persons such as petitioners who are in moffusil areas. Also it would result in divulgence of trade secrets which would adversely affect business. Such consequences, if any, cannot affect the constitutional validity of the notification. In fact, if the notification applies to the petitioners, who belong to the class of dealers whose total turnover is Rs.50.00 lakh and above a month, they cannot express hardship with regard to the need for engaging the services of data entry operators or computer knowing personnel for uploading the details as per the impugned notification. Such a requirement is in no way an unreasonable restriction on their business. Infact, it enhances transperancy in the business of the dealers such as the petitioners which would bring in efficacy in the assessment proceedings and avoidance of tax and legal wrangles and uncertainty in payment of tax. It would also lend efficiency to recovery of tax from errant dealers and thus be in the interest of Revenue. 21. Infact, it enhances transperancy in the business of the dealers such as the petitioners which would bring in efficacy in the assessment proceedings and avoidance of tax and legal wrangles and uncertainty in payment of tax. It would also lend efficiency to recovery of tax from errant dealers and thus be in the interest of Revenue. 21. Also the apprehension of the petitioners that uploading of details as sought in the impugned notification would divulge information of persons from whom the petitioners purchase goods in the public domain, which would hamper or adversely affect their business, is misplaced. The entry of details as sought in the impugned Notification by the user name and pass word is only to the Department and not for public consumption. The Department through learned Addl. Government Advocate assures that details which are uploaded by the specified dealers such as that of petitioners would not be in the public domain and would be made use of exclusively by the Department for the purpose of making assessment not for any other purpose. It is only for the purpose of the Department efficiently assessing the returns filed by the dealers such as the petitioners. Therefore, the contention that uploading of information as sought in the impugned notification would adversely affect petitioners business is not well founded. 22. It is reiterated that the power exercised by the Commissioner under the said proviso 1 to subsection (1) of Section 35 is not a power which has been granted to the State Government as a rule making power under Section 88 of the Act. The proviso only grants an administrative power to the Commissioner and it is not an instance of excessive delegation of legislative power. Thus there is no merit in any of the contentions of the petitioners. 23. No other contention being raised by the petitioner, the writ petitions stand dismissed.